JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™

Preweek Pointers
On Evidence

Prof. Manuel R. Riguera

• ANTICIPATED NUMBER OF
QUESTIONS ON EVIDENCE:

3
• Questions will
deal with
basic
concepts, not
complex or
nuanced ones.
 1. Original Document
Rule (Best Evidence Rule).
Anticipated
2. Parol Evidence Rule.
Question
3. Marital
Topics:
Disqualification Rule.
The All
4. Attorney-Client
Time Privilege.
Favorites 5. Hearsay rule and its
exceptions.
 Definition of documentary evidence

• Documentary evidence consists of

writings, recordings, photographs or any
material containing letters, words,
sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or
their equivalent, or other modes of
written expression offered as proof of
their contents. >
 Photographs
• A "photograph" means a photographic
image or its equivalent stored in any
form (FRE R1001[c]) offered as proof of
their contents. Photographs include still
pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray
films, motion pictures or videos. (S2
R130 as amended by the 2020
amendments).
 Recording
• A “recording" consists of letters, words,
numbers, or their equivalent recorded in
any manner. Under S2 R130 as amended
by the 2020 amendments, recording
includes “sounds.” >
 Hence a recording of a conversation,
speech, or other oral communication is
considered as documentary evidence.
See Johns v. United States, 323 F.2d
421 (5th Cir. 1963).
• ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE
 • The erstwhile best
evidence rule is
now known as the
original document
Original rule in order to
Document Rule avoid confusion,
since the rule
applies only to
documentary
evidence.
• The original document rule provides that
when the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, writing,
recording, photograph or other record,
no evidence is admissible other than the
original document itself. (S3 R130 as
amended by the 2020 amendments).
• Q The prosecution witness testified that
he saw a CCTV footage of the accused
robbing the bank. The defense counsel
objected on the ground of the original
document rule. The prosecutor argued
that the CCTV footage is not a document
since it is not a writing. Is the
prosecutor’s argument correct?
A No. Photographs, which includes
motion pictures or videos, are expressly
included in the definition of documentary
evidence under S2 R130 and in the original
document rule under S3 R130 of the 2020
Rules on Evidence.
 • An “original” of a
document is the
document itself or any
counterpart intended to
have the same effect by
Original a person executing or
issuing it. An “original”
of a photograph includes
the negative or any print
therefrom. >
 Computer-
stored data

If data is stored in
a computer or similar
device, any printout or
output readable by sight
or other means, shown
to reflect the data
accurately, is an
“original.”
 Duplicate
• A "duplicate" means a counterpart
produced by a mechanical, photographic,
chemical, electronic, or other equivalent
process or technique (MePECO) that
accurately reproduces the original.
•Q Proponent presents in evidence a
photocopy of a letter written by the
adverse party without accounting for the
non-production of the original letter. The
adverse party objects on the ground of
the original document rule. Should the
objection be sustained?
A No, the objection should be
overruled.
 Under S4(c) R130, “[a] duplicate is
admissible to the same extent as an
original unless (1) a genuine question is
raised as to the authenticity of the original,
or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or
inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of
the original.
 A photocopy is a duplicate since it is a
counterpart produced by photography
which is a technique which accurately
reproduces the original. (See S4[b] R130).
 FAQ

• ODR applies only to documentary

evidence not to testimonial/oral
or object evidence.
 Air France v Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155

• Testimony on what the purser read to the

witness from a notebook not covered by
ODR.
 Exceptions to ODR: (CLAP CO)
C - Custody/Control. Original is in
the custody or control of the adverse
party and he fails to produce despite
reasonable notice.
L - Lost/Destroyed/Production
cannot be made and without bad faith
on the part of the offeror. (LDP).
 A - Accounts which are numerous
and cannot be examined without great
loss of time and the fact sought to be
established is only the general result of
the whole. (NTG [grew]).
P - Public record or recorded in a
public office. <
 2 additional exceptions to
the original document rule (CO)
• (1) The original is not related to a
controlling issue. (S3 R130)
(2) The original cannot be obtained
by local judicial processes or procedures.
 S3(b) R130
• When the original is in the custody or
under the control of the party against
whom the evidence is offered, and the
latter fails to produce it after reasonable
notice, or the original cannot be
obtained by local judicial processes or
procedures;
 S3(b) R130 actually refers
to 2 distinct exceptions.
• The 1st part refers to the situation where
the original is in the custody of the
adverse party. Mere notice is sufficient
to avail of secondary evidence.
The 2nd part refers to the situation
where the original is in the custody of a
third person. Local judicial process must
be resorted to.
• When the third person
in custody of the original
is outside the
jurisdiction of the court,
as when he is in a
foreign country,
secondary evidence is
admissible.
 Original is not related
to a controlling issue
• Incidental references by a witness to
road signs, street names, names of
commercial establishments, brand
names, etc. are not excluded by the rule
unless the terms of the writing have
particular significance in the litigation. –
Committee Notes.
 Original not related
to a controlling issue
• ODR does not apply if the contents of a
document are not the subject of inquiry,
as in the case where neither party
disputed the contents of a service
contract. (Nissan North EDSA v. United
Phil. Scout Agency, 20 April 2010).
 1. Execution or
Foundation existence of the document.
for 2. Cause of its
introduction unavailability.
of 3. Reasonable
secondary diligence and good faith on
evidence the part of proponent to
(EUR). Proof produce original. (Citibank v
of: Teodoro, 23 Sep 03).
 1. Copy.*
Secondary 2. Recital in an
evidence
authentic document.
(CRT) when
original 3. Testimony of a
unavailable witness.
 Text • Text messages are electronic
messages documents which are
are covered by the original
electronic document rule. Hence
docs testimony or transcript of
their contents can be
introduced provided
predicate is laid. (State v.
Espiritu, 176 P.3d 885 [Haw.
2008]).
• PAROL EVIDENCE RULE (S9 R130)
 • Once an agreement has
been reduced to writing,
parol or extraneous
evidence (oral or written)
Parol of prior or
contemporaneous terms
evidence and conditions may not be
rule presented by a party or his
(PER) successor-in-interest to
modify, explain, or add
(MEA) to the terms of the
written agreement.
 Illustration
• On 1 April 2021, seller and buyer
executed a deed of absolute sale over a
parcel of land in which the price of the
lot is stated at P1 million payable in full
upon its execution. >
In suit by seller against buyer to enforce
the contract, may the buyer introduce in
evidence an email from seller dated 1
March 2021 in which the seller agreed that
the price would be payable in five annual
installments beginning from the execution
of the deed of sale? >
 No. The parol evidence rule bars
evidence of prior or contemporaneous
terms or conditions, whether oral or
written, which would alter the terms of a
written contract. >
 The email dated 1 March 2021 is a
prior written term which would alter the
manner of paying the price as stipulated in
the contract. When the deed of sale was
reduced to writing, it was deemed as
containing all the terms agreed upon. <
• The PER applies only to written
contracts. Thus, a receipt which is
merely proof of payment is not covered
by the PER.
Note however that a will is considered
a written agreement for purposes of the
PER.
 • The award of interest where
the govt acquires private
property through voluntary
sale is not a matter of law but
Rep. v. of contract. Where deed of
sale between govt and
Gamir landowner did not provide for
(2018) interest, the court cannot
award interest. (Republic v.
Gamir-Consuelo Diaz Heirs
Assoc. Inc., 12 Nov 2018,
Reyes, J.).
 • A party may present parol
evidence to modify,
explain, or add to the
terms of the written
EXCEPTIONS
TO PAROL agreement if he puts in
EVIDENCE issue in his verified
RULE pleading:
 Exceptions: (VISA)
V – Validity of written agreement put
in issue.
I – Intent of parties not expressed in
written agreement.
S – Subsequent agreements, i.e, made
after the execution of written agreement.
A – Ambiguity (latent/intrinsic),
imperfection, mistake. (AIM).
 Evidence to prove exception must
be clear and convincing
• To overcome the presumption that
the written agreement contains all
the terms of the agreement, the parol
evidence must be clear and
convincing and of such sufficient
credibility as to overturn the written
agreement. >
In this case, James' uncorroborated
allegation that the loan documents were
merely pre-signed for future loans is far
from being the clear and convincing
evidence necessary to defeat the terms of
the written instrument. (Phil. National
Bank v. Cua, 18 April 2018, Martires, J.).
 Latent/intrinsic ambiguity
• That which is not apparent from the
face of the document but appears
from some extraneous circumstance.
 Illustration
• “I bequeath my parcel of land in
Bacoor, Cavite, to my cousin Jose
Reyes.”
 Patent or extrinsic ambiguity
• “I bequeath a parcel of land to my
cousin Ruben Reyes.”
 Financial • Rudlin Corp (owner) contends
Bldg Corp v that although the price stated in
the contract is ₱6.9 million,
Rudlin there was an understanding that
Int’l Corp, the true price was ₱6 million.
4 Oct 2010 They invoke the exception to the
PER under S10(b) R130 wherein
the written agreement failed to
express the true intent of the
parties. >
 Held: S10(b) R130
available only where
written contract is so
obscure or ambiguous
that the parties’
contractual intention
cannot be understood
from a mere reading of
the instrument.
 • Mental incapacity.
• Immature children.
• Marriage (Marital
Disqualification Rule)
Disqualification
of witnesses
• Death or Insanity.
(1989 Rules) (Dead Man’s Statute and
MIM DIP claim v. insane)
• Privileged
Communication (MAP
PP)
 WITNESS DISQUALIFICATIONS
• The 2020 Rules have abolished the
following witness disqualifications:
1. Those who are mentally
incapacitated and immature children.
(S21[a] R130, 1989 Rules).
2. Claimants against the estate of a
deceased person or against an insane
person. (S23 R130, 1989 Rules).
 Child witness
• Every child is presumed qualified to be a
witness. However, the court may
conduct a competency examination if
substantial doubts exist as to the child’s
competency to testify. (Sec. 6, Rule of
Examination of a Child Witness [RECW]).
 Dead Man’s Statute is now dead
• A party having a claim or demand against
the (1) estate of a deceased person or
against the (2) estate’s
executor/administrator cannot testify as
to fact which happened before the
decedent’s death.
• Sec. 23 of the 1989 Rules on Evidence
has been abolished by S39 R130 of the
2020 Rules which provides that a
claimant can testify on an ante-litem fact
or a fact occurring before the person
became of unsound mind, >
subject to the hearsay exception under S39
R130 regarding the statement of the
deceased or person of unsound mind.
 • During the
marriage, a
MARRIAGE
DISQUALIFICATION
spouse cannot
RULE (S22 R130, testify for or
1989 RULES)
against the other,
>
 except in a civil case by
one spouse against the
other or a criminal case
committed by one
Exception spouse against the other
or the other’s direct
ascendants or
descendants. (SAD)
 Marital Disqualification Rule
• The 2020 Rules deleted the word
“for” after testify. Hence a husband
cannot object if his wife will testify
for him.
• Marriage must be existing at the time of
the offer of the testimony. Even if
marriage happened after the fact sought
to be testified to.
 • In a prosecution for arson,
the wife could testify
Alvarez v against her husband where
they had been separated de
Ramirez,
facto for 6 months. There is
14 Oct no more harmony, peace,
2005 and tranquility to be
preserved thus the reason
for the MDR ceases.
 When to object
• The time to raise the MDR as an
objection is when the spouse is called to
the witness stand and his/her testimony
is offered. Otherwise, the objection is
waived.
 PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
(MAP PP)
1. Marital Communication Privilege
2. Attorney-Client Privilege
3. Physician/Psychotherapist-Patient
Privilege.
4. Priest’s/Minister’s Privilege
5. Public Officer’s Privilege.
 Marital communication privilege
• The husband or wife cannot be examined
without the consent of the other as to
any confidential communication received
from the other during the marriage >
 Exception
except in a civil case by one spouse
against the other or in a criminal case for
a crime committed by one spouse against
the other or the latter’s direct
ascendants or descendants. <
 Post-marital bar
• Unlike the MDR, the MCP still holds even
after the termination of the marriage
since S24(a) R130 states “during or after
the marriage.”
 MDR cf MCP
Marital Disqualification Marital Communication
Rule Privilege
Marriage should be May be invoked even after
existing at time of offer of termination of marriage
testimony
Total prohibition vs any Applies only to confidential
testimony against spouse communications between
the spouses.
 Attorney-Client Privilege
• An attorney or person reasonably
believed by the client to be licensed to
engage in the practice of law cannot,
without the client’s consent, be
examined as to any communication made
by the client to him or his advice given
thereon in the course of, or with a view
to, professional employment. >
• Nor can an attorney’s secretary,
stenographer, or clerk, or other persons
assisting the attorney be examined
without the consent of the client and his
employer concerning any fact the
knowledge of which has been acquired in
such capacity. (S24[b] R130 as amended
by the 2020 Rules).
“Other persons assisting the attorney”

• Communication by client to accountant

employed or hired by tax law firm, which
communication was in relation to the
matter for which the client retained the
law firm, is privileged. (United States v.
Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 [2d Cir. 1961]).
Exceptions to Attorney-Client Privilege

• i. Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the

services or advice of the lawyer were
sought or obtained to enable or aid
anyone to commit or plan to commit
what the client knew or reasonably
should have known to be a crime or
fraud. >
• This is a codification of the well-known
rule that the privilege applies only to past
not future crimes. The exception applies
regardless whether the attorney is aware
of the criminal or fraudulent purpose.
Privilege only to past crimes not future
crimes
• Privileged communication relates only to
past crimes not intention to commit
future crime. Cut-off point is when the
communication was made to the client,
not when witness will testify. (People v.
Sandiganbayan, 275 SCRA 505 [1997]).
Exception
to
attorney-
client
privilege
 PHYSICIAN/PSYCHOTHERAPIST-
PATIENT PRIVILEGE
• A physician, psychotherapist or person
reasonably believed by the patient to be
authorized to practice medicine or
psychotherapy cannot in a civil case,
without the patient’s consent, >
be examined as to any confidential
communication made for the purpose of
diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s
physical, mental or emotional condition,
including alcohol or drug addiction,
between the patient and his physician or
psychotherapist.
• Note that the requirement under the
former rule that the information would
“blacken the patient’s reputation” has
been deleted in the amended provision.
Also the privilege has been extended
to psychotherapists and their patients.
 • Applies only to civil
cases. Law and order
FAQ considerations
override the privilege
in criminal cases.
• The information must be necessary to
the advice or treatment. Info that the
patient is having an extramarital affair is
generally not privileged.
 Chan v Chan, 24 July 2013
• In a marriage nullification case, R27
cannot be used to compel production of
hospital and medical records of
respondent (test results, diagnosis,
advice and treatment) to show that he
was undergoing drug rehab. Disclosing
them would be equivalent to compelling
the physician to testify.
 Psychological evaluations in
marriage nullification cases
• It is opined that psychological
evaluations in marriage nullification
privileges are not covered by the
privilege since the subject knows that the
evaluation is to be used in court and
hence, no expectation of privacy.
 PRIEST’S/MINISTER’S PRIVILEGE
• The privilege has been extended to a
person reasonably believed to be a
minister or priest.
Privilege expanded to cover not only
confessions, but also other
communications made to the priest or
minister.
 Public Officer’s Privilege
• A public officer cannot be examined
during or after his tenure as to
communications made to him in official
confidence, when the court finds that the
public interest would suffer by the
disclosure. (S24(e) R130).
 Rationale
• To encourage free and frank
communication and advice to or by
the public officers in order that they
may perform effectively their official
functions.
Presidential Communications Privilege

• The minutes of the meetings of the

Committee on Trade & Related Matters
(CTRM) are privileged under the
Presidential Communications Privilege.
The privilege extends also to those who
assist and advise the President. (Sereno
v. CTRM, 1 February 2016, Bersamin, J.).
 Deliberative Process Privilege
• The privilege protects from disclosure the
deliberations forming part of a process
by which governmental decisions and
policies are formulated. (DFA v. BCA
International Corp., 29 June 2016,
Carpio, J.).
 Deliberative Process Privilege
• The privilege does not end when an
agency has adopted a definite
proposition or when a contract has been
perfected or consummated; otherwise,
the purpose of the privilege will be
defeated. (DFA v. BCA International
Corp., 29 June 2016, Carpio, J.).
 Extension of privileges
• The communication shall remain
privileged, even in the hands of a third
person who may have obtained the
information, provided that the original
parties to the communication took
reasonable precaution to protect its
confidentiality. (S24 R130, 2020 Rules).
• TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGES
 Filial & Parental Privilege
• No person shall be compelled to testify
against his parents, other direct
ascendants, children or other direct
descendants, except when such
testimony is indispensable in a crime
against that person or by one parent
against the other. (S25 R130, 2020 Rules
on Evidence).
• Note that the privilege belongs to
the witness, not to the person he is
testifying against.
• A father inflicted serious physical injuries
on his son. May the son be compelled to
testify against his father?
Yes if testimony is indispensable.
 Stepmother may be compelled to
testify against her stepdaughter
• The parental privilege does not apply
since the same covers only direct
descendants, and a stepdaughter is not a
direct descendant of the stepmother.
(Lee v. Court of Appeals, 13 July 2010).
 OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS (HARI)

• 1. HEARSAY.
2. ADMISSIONS. (PARTY & VICARIOUS)
3. RES INTER ALIOS ACTA.
4. INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT
STATEMENTS.
• PARTY ADMISSIONS
 Admission
• An act, statement, or
omission (ASO) of a party as
to a relevant fact may be
given in evidence against
him.
• The admissions under R130 are
extrajudicial admissions. This should be
distinguished from judicial admissions
under R129.
• Admissions may be made by a party
directly or vicariously.
 Res inter alios acta
• Under the rule of res inter alios acta, the
ASO of a third person cannot be given in
evidence against a party. (S29 R130).
 Vicarious
Admissions
• Exception is in the
case of vicarious
admissions.
Rationale:
Sufficient affinity or
close relation of the
3rd person with the
adverse party.
 Res Inter Alios Acta
• Importer-consignee may not be held
criminally liable for false import
declarations prepared and signed by his
customs broker. (Mercado v. People, 8
July 2015, Bersamin, J.)
 FAQ

• Res inter alios acta rule is

applicable only to out-of-court
statements. In-court statements
may be offered against a party.
• In civil cases, an offer of compromise is
not an admission of liability and is not
admissible in evidence against the
offeror. (S28 R130, 2020 Rules on
Evidence).
• In criminal cases, offer of compromise is
an implied admission of guilt.

Exceptions: Quasi-offenses and those

allowed by law to be compromised.
• The better rule is that an offer of
marriage by the offender in a rape case is
an admission of liability. (People v.
Valdez, 29 May 1987). The law does not
allow rape to be compromised but
merely provides that marriage
extinguishes the crime.
• People v. Yparraguirre, 268 SCRA 35, 41
(1997): “[a]n offer to compromise does
not require that a criminal complaint be
filed first before the offer can be received
in evidence against the offeror.”
 Admission by silence
• An AS made in the presence of and
within the hearing or observation of a
party who remains silent when the AS is
such as naturally to call for comment or
action if not true and when proper and
possible for party to do so. (S33 R120)
 Illustration
• Prosecution of X for homicide.
Prosecution witness testifies that
bystander identified X as culprit and
X kept silent.
 Pp v Español, 13 Feb 2009
• Accused’s silence when his wife’s
nephew asked him why he killed his wife
is an admission by silence under S33
R130. >
• No admission by silence if party
has a right to remain silent (e.g.,
under custodial investigation).
• VICARIOUS ADMISSIONS (J-CAPP)
• Vicarious admissions, like direct
admissions, are not covered by the
hearsay rule.
Hence a witness may testify
regarding a vicarious admission even if
the same was made out of court.
 Admission by co-conspirator
• The act or declaration of a conspirator
relating to in furtherance of the
conspiracy and during its existence, may
be given in evidence against the co-
conspirator after the conspiracy is shown
by evidence other than such act or
declaration. (S31 R130 of the 2020 Rules
on Evidence). (FEE).
 “in furtherance”
• A statement made in furtherance of a
conspiracy is one intended to advance
the objectives of the conspiracy.
 Example
• Illegal gun-dealer testified that A told him
he wanted to buy a suitable gun which
he was going to use in a bank robbery
planned by him and B and C.
 Not in furtherance
• Witness testified that A had
told him that he and B and C
had meticulously planned a
bank robbery and they will
earn a lot of money after the
heist.
The statement is mere
bragging which will not advance
the objectives of the conspiracy.
 • Evidence that one
did or did not do a
certain thing at one
time is not
admissible to prove
Similar that he did or did
Acts Rule not do the same or
similar thing at
another time; >
 Exception but it may be
to SAR received to prove
(PIKICHUS) PIKICHUS and the
like. <
 Illustration:
Q The prosecution charges that on June
15, Andoy possessed an ounce of shabu
with intent to sell. Andoy admits the
possession of the shabu but insists that
the same was for his personal use. >
May the prosecution introduce evidence
that Andoy had sold shabu on May 1,
May 15, and June 1 over an objection
that such would violate the similar acts
rule?
 Intent &/or habit
A Yes since the evidence of the prior
acts of selling would tend to prove
Andoy’s intent to sell the drugs he
possessed on June 15. <
 • In prosecutions for
rape, evidence of
complainant’s past
sexual conduct,
RAPE opinion thereof, or of
his/her reputation
SHIELD (PascOR) inadmissible
RULE unless court finds that
such evidence is
material & relevant to
the case.
• Q Prosecution for rape where
accused raises the defense of
consent. May accused introduce
evidence that complainant had
extramarital sex with other men?
• No. Evidence of a rape complainant’s
past sexual conduct is inadmissible
unless found by the court to be
relevant to the case. Here the sexual
acts with men other than the accused
is irrelevant. (U.S. v. Kasto, 584 F.2d
268 [1978])
 Ratio decidendi

• “Even an immoral woman has

some freedom of selection.”
Rule of thumb in Rape Shield Rule
• EVIDENCE OF PAST SEXUAL CONDUCT:
Inadmissible unless with accused to
show consent or with others to show
that another was source of semen, injury,
or other physical evidence.
• OPINION & REPUTATION. Inadmissible.
• HEARSAY RULE AND ITS
EXCEPTIONS
 Hearsay (OTA)
• An out-of-court statement offered in
evidence for the truth of the fact
asserted therein. (Miro v. Vda de
Herederos, 20 Nov 2013; see Federal
Rules of Evidence 801[c]).
 Traditional definition of hearsay
• An out-of-court statement made by a
person who is not presented as a witness
and which statement is offered to prove
the truth of the fact asserted therein.
(DST Movers Corp. v. People’s Gen. Ins.
Corp., 13 January 2016, Leonen, J.)
 Hearsay Rule
• Hearsay is
inadmissible in
evidence unless it
falls within any of
the exceptions to
the hearsay rule.
 LOOK OUT FOR THE
DECLARANT
• HEARSAY RULE NOT IMPLICATED
W ---------> C

HEARSAY RULE IMPLICATED

D ------------> W -----------> C
 Rationale for the Hearsay Rule
The lack of opportunity to cross-
examine the out-of-court declarant.
The opportunity to cross-examine
must be at the time the statement is
made, not some time thereafter.
 Self-serving statements
• Self-serving statements are those made
by a party out of court advocating his
own interest. They do not include a
party’s testimony in court as a witness. >
The proper ground for objecting to self-
serving statements is not that they are
self-serving but that they are hearsay.
Statements made by a party in court
favoring his interest may not be objected
to as self-serving since the party may be
cross-examined. (People v. Omictin, 26
July 2010).
• Admissions, whether direct or vicarious,
are excluded from the hearsay rule.
Admission excluded from
the hearsay rule
• The reason is that a party cannot
complain that he did not have an
opportunity to cross-examine
himself. (Estrada v. Desierto, 3
April 2001).
 Illustration
• In an oral defamation case, prosecution
witness’s testimony that he heard the
accused call the offended party a
prostitute is excluded from hearsay since
it is an admission.
There must be a statement otherwise
the hearsay rule will not be implicated
• A statement is (1) an oral or written
assertion or (2) a non-verbal conduct of
a person, if it is intended by him as an
assertion.
 ASSERTIVE NONVERBAL CONDUCT
IS HEARSAY
• 1. In a police line-up, declarant points
his finger at the accused.
2. Declarant nods his head in response
to a question.
 Independently Relevant Statement
(IRS)
• An out-of-court statement which is
relevant not for the truth of a matter
asserted therein but for something else,
e.g., state of mind, intent, belief, the
mere fact of utterance, or legal effect.
(SIBUL)
 Take note
• IRS is not an exception to the hearsay
rule because in the first place it is not
hearsay.
 Example of IRS
• Deceased testator’s statement that there
were Martians in his backyard is
admissible in a probate proceeding to
prove that the testator was not of sound
and disposing mind.
• In an action to recover possession of
land, defendant son may testify that he
heard his late father say “I am the owner
of the land.”
Statement is admissible to prove that
father believed he owned the land and
thus was a possessor in good faith.
 Rule of Thumb to spot IRS
• Would the statement have probative
value even if it was false or
incorrect?
• Medical certificate that plaintiff suffered
whiplash is hearsay if the physician who
executed it not presented in court. (Dela
Llana v Biong, 4 Dec 2013).
• A medical report is hearsay when the
doctor who prepared the same did not
testify in court, even if the defense
counsel agreed to the stipulation that the
rape victim submitted herself to a
medical examination. (Pp v Rondina, 30
June 2014).
 Hearsay
• Affidavit of doctor absolving another
doctor from professional negligence is
hearsay where the affiant was not
presented in court. (Rosit v. Davao
Doctors Hospital, 7 December 2015).
 Hearsay
• Complaint-affidavit is hearsay where
affiant did not testify and was not subject
to cross-examination on contents
thereof. (Ibañez v. People, 9 Oct 2019,
Bersamin, C.J.).
• EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY
RULE
• Exceptions to the hearsay rule are still
hearsay but are admissible for reasons of
necessity and/or reliability.
 Dying Declaration
• Applies to both criminal and civil cases.
 Requirements: DICC
1. Declarant should die.
2. Death is the subject of inquiry in the
case.
3. Declarant conscious of impending
death.
4. Declaration relates to cause and
circumstances surrounding declarant’s
death.
 Interface with res gestae
• A statement which is not admissible as a
dying declaration may usually be
admitted as part of the res gestae
(excited utterance) if it satisfies the
requirements thereof.
Explicit statement of consciousness of
impending death not required
• The degree and seriousness of
declarant’s wounds is sufficient to
show that he was conscious of his
dying condition. (Marturillas v.
People, 18 Apr 06).
• The fact that the victim had 9 stab
wounds which caused his death within
the next 48 hours indicates that the
victim was conscious of his impending
death. (People v. Tabarnero, 24 February
2010).
• Bloodied condition of a stab victim
indicates that victim must have been fully
aware that he was on the brink of death.
(People v. Serenas, 29 June 2010).
People v. Rarugal, 16 January 2013
• It is of no moment that the victim died
seven days from the stabbing incident
and after receiving adequate care and
treatment, because the apparent
proximate cause of his death, the
punctures in his lungs, was a
consequence of appellant’s stabbing him
in the chest. >
At the time the victim made his
declaration, his breathing labored, he
realized that he could die after having
been stabbed twice in the chest. <
• Declaration must be about cause and
circumstances surrounding his own
death.
• RES GESTAE, PART OF THE
(S44)
 Excited utterance (STIC)
• Statements made by a person while a
startling occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto
under the stress of the excitement
caused by the occurrence with respect
to the circumstances thereof may be
given in evidence as part of the res
gestae.
• Rationale: A high level of reliability on
statements made under the effect of a
startling or exciting occurrence.
 People v. Feliciano
• A sudden attack on a group peacefully
eating lunch on a school campus by
masked men wielding baseball bats is a
startling occurrence. The statements of
bystanders made immediately after the
assault are admissible as part of the res
gestae. (People v. Feliciano, 5 May 2014,
Leonen, J.).
 Phoenix Construction v. Dionisio
• An automobile speeding down a street
and suddenly smashing into a parked
dump truck in the dead of night is a
startling occurrence. The police officer’s
testimony re bystander’s statements was
therefore admissible as part of the res
gestae. (Phoenix Construction, Inc. v.
Dionisio, 10 March 1987, Feliciano, J.).
 Two benchmarks of immediacy
• 1. TIME.
2. EFFECT/STRESS.
 Immediacy not only a matter of time
but of influence
• Statement admissible even if made
eleven hours after the incident, provided
the declarant was still under the
influence of the startling event. (Zarate v.
People, 3 July 2009).
• Statement made 12 hours after by
AAA that she was ravished by her
own father admissible as part of res
gestae but that made 3 days after
was far too removed from the event.
(People v. XXX, 22 August 2018,
Caguioa, J.).
 Part of the Res Gestae
• Statement made by victim 3 days after
the shooting admitted as part of the res
gestae where he was still under influence
of the startling event and had no
opportunity to fabricate. Victim still
under influence since he had to undergo
extensive surgery after shooting. (Pp v.
Vargas, 18 Sep 2019, Caguioa, J.).
 Rule of Thumb
• If the statement was made at the time of
or immediately before or after the
startling occurrence, it may be presumed
that it was made under the stress of
excitement caused by the startling
occurrence, >
but if it is removed in time from the
occurrence, there must be a showing that
the declarant was still under the stress of
excitement.
 Ante-mortem statements
• In ante-mortem statement, analyze
using dying declaration and res
gestae exceptions.
• In res gestae, look first for time and
then effect/stress.
 Records of regularly conducted
business activity (S45)
• The new provision provides for a uniform
rule regarding business records. Before
there was a bifurcated approach
regarding business records: S43 R130
for non-electronic business records and
R8 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence
(REE) on electronic business records. >
The new S45 R130 provides for a uniform
approach since S45 R130 applies to both
electronic and non-electronic business
records.
• There is no reason why R8 of the REE
should not be applied to non-electronic
documents. - SC Explanatory Notes 29.
 Significant changes under
new S45 R130
• 1. The availability or unavailability of
the entrant is no longer material.
2. The entrant/recorder need no
longer have personal knowledge of the
information he is recording, it being
sufficient that the record is made by or
from information transmitted by a person
with knowledge thereof.
 • Books of account,
invoices,
statements of
account, bills of
lading, log-book of
Examples a security guard,
medical charts by
nurses and doctors
in a hospital.
 Electronic business record, def.
• Sec. 2(b) R2 of REE defines “business
records” as including records of any
business, profession, occupation, and
calling (B COP) of every kind, whether or
not conducted for profit or for legitimate
purposes.
• COMMON REPUTATION (S43)
 Common Reputation
• Common reputation existing previous to
the controversy, as to boundaries of or
customs affecting lands in the
community and reputation as to events
of general history important to the
community, or respecting marriage or
moral character, may be given in
evidence.
• OFFICIAL RECORDS §46
 Requirements: (K POP)
• Entries in official records made in the
performance of his duty by a public
officer of the Philippines, or by a person
in the performance of a duty specially
enjoined by law. >
The entrant must have personal knowledge
of the facts stated by him or knowledge
acquired through official information.
(Africa v. Caltex, 16 SCRA 448). >
 Or the declaration contained in the
report must be justified by another hearsay
exception or exclusion. (See double
hearsay discussion).
 Official information
• 1. Entry by LCR as to details of marriage
certificate an official record since
supplied to him by solemnizing officer
who has specific legal duty to do so
under Family Code.
2. Entry made by public officers from
info supplied by his subordinates.
 Persons specially enjoined by law
• 1) Log book entries required under the
Code of Commerce to be kept by a ship
captain.
2) Stamp of dishonor and its reason
required from the drawee of a check under
B.P. Blg. 22.
 Prima facie evidence
• Not only are official records excepted
from the hearsay rule, but they are also
prima facie evidence of the facts stated
therein.
 Africa v Caltex, 16 SCRA 448
• Police investigation report of a fire at a
gasoline station. Police officer did not
have personal knowledge of the cause of
fire (throwing of a cigarette) which was
supplied to him by a bystander he had
interviewed.
• Traffic Accident Investigation Report was
hearsay since the police officer who
prepared it did not have personal
knowledge of the cause of the accident.
(DST Movers Inc. v. People’s Gen. Ins.
Corp., 13 January 2016, Leonen, J.).
• The NBI/Progress report, having been
submitted by the officials not on the
basis of their own personal knowledge of
the facts reported but merely on the
basis of the complainants' affidavits is
hearsay. The Deputy Ombudsman cannot
rely on it. (Miro v Vda de Erederos, 20
Nov 2013).
• Sheriff’s return is an official record as to
fact stated therein. Sheriff need not be
presented in court. (Manalo v. Robles
Trans. Co., 99 Phil. 729).
 POEA certification
• POEA certification that accused was not a
licensed recruiter is an official record.
Hence it is an exception to the hearsay
rule and admissible even if the one who
made the certification was not presented
in court. (People v. Ochoa, 31 August
2011). >
 Hearsay not objected to
• Hearsay not timely objected to is
admissible since the ground for the
objection is deemed waived.
If so admitted, it has probative value
and should be given the weight it deserves
on a case-by-case basis. (Tison v CA, 276
SCRA 582; Manliclic v Calaunan, 25 Jan
2007; 5 Moran 285 [1980 ed.]).
 Lack of firsthand knowledge
distinguished from hearsay
• Testimony confined to personal
knowledge. - A witness can testify only to
those facts which he or she knows of his
or her personal knowledge; that is, which
are derived from his or her own
perception. (S22 R130).
 Lack of firsthand knowledge
distinguished from hearsay
• Prosecution presents W who testifies
that accused shot the victim. Defense
knows that W was in the U.S. at the time
of the shooting, which happened in the
PH. Defense can object on the ground of
lack of firsthand knowledge.
 Lack of personal knowledge
distinguished from hearsay
• Prosecution presents W who testifies
that he heard David say that accused
shot victim. The proper objection is not
lack of firsthand knowledge but hearsay
since W is reporting an out-of-court
statement.
• OPINION RULE
• G.R. The opinion of a witness is not
admissible in evidence.
 Exceptions: (SLEC)
1. Expert opinion.
2. Lay opinion on HIS and short-hand
impressions on CABE.
3. Witness’s opinion of a person’s
character in cases where character
evidence is admissible. (S54 R130).
 EXPERT OPINION
• Sec. 52. Opinion of expert witness. - The
opinion of a witness on a matter
requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience, training or education, which
he is shown to possess, may be received
in evidence.
• Not necessary that expert witness have
formal training or instruction.
 Expert witness must be qualified
• The witness should be qualified, that is,
he should be shown to possess the
special TEKES before he is allowed to
testify.
Objection as to failure to qualify
should be timely raised; otherwise, it is
deemed waived.
• Unlike the ordinary witness, the expert
witness may testify based on
hypothetical or assumed facts.
 Lay or short-hand opinion
of witness allowed in: (HIS)
–Handwriting of which he is familiar.
–Identity of a person whom the witness
he adequately knows.
–Sanity of a person of whom the
witness is acquainted.
 Opinion Rule
• Ordinary witness’ impression on
similarity of signature is an opinion if
familiarity with handwriting of signer is
not shown. (Co v. People, 16 Oct 2019,
Bersamin, C.J.).
 Short-hand impressions
• Impressions on CABE (condition,
appearance, behavior, and emotion) of a
person may be testified to by lay witness.
Lay witness can also give opinions on
physical dimensions, lighting conditions,
and speed. (PLS).
• CHARACTER EVIDENCE
CHARACTER REPUTATION
What you are What the
community knows
you are
What is to be proved The evidence or
means of proof
• The general rule is that character
evidence is not admissible. The reason is
that it is irrelevant. A case should be
decided based on the facts and the law,
not on the character of the parties. The
court should try the case, not the man.
(Pp v Lee, 29 May 2002).
• Character as a rule cannot be used as
circumstantial or propensity evidence.
“Evidence of a person’s character or a
trait of character is not admissible for the
purpose of proving action in conformity
therewith on a particular occasion.” (S54
R130, 2020 Rules).
• OUTLINE OF THE RULES ON
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
 PARTY IN CIVIL CASE
• CIVIL CASES. Evidence of moral character
of a party is admissible only when
pertinent to the issue of character
involved in a case. (picic)
 Hence character cannot be used as
circumstantial evidence in a civil case
except to impeach or rehabilitate a
witness.
• Q Owner sued contractor for damages
for using substandard materials despite
agreement to use high-quality materials.
May contractor present a witness to
testify on his honest reputation?
 A. No. The issue of character is not
pertinent to the suit for damages. Here
character evidence is being used merely as
circumstantial evidence that contractor
would not have deceived owner as he has
a propensity to be honest.
• In criminal cases, character can be used
as circumstantial evidence:
1. Mercy Rule.
2. Character of offended party.
 ACCUSED’S CHARACTER (Mercy Rule)

• CRIMINAL CASES: Evidence of the

accused’s good moral character is
admissible if pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged
(PMTIOC). This is also known as the
“Mercy Rule.” (Bautista 139-40) >
 Take note
• The prosecution cannot adduce evidence
of the accused’s bad moral character
unless in rebuttal.
 OFFENDED PARTY’S CHARACTER
• Evidence of the good or bad moral
character of the offended party is
admissible if it tends to establish the
probability or improbability of the
offense charged (TEPIOC).
• In homicide, defense evidence of the
victim’s moral character admissible in
two situations, (1) to show victim’s
aggression, and (2) to show accused’s
state of mind, i.e., that he had
reasonable ground to believe that his life
was in danger, necessitating defensive
action. (Pp v. Lee, 29 May 2002, e.b.)
 Pp v Lee, 29 May 2002
• The accused in a murder case raised the
defense that victim was a drug addict
and thief to try to show that he could
have been killed by any one of those
from whom he had stolen. >
 The SC said that proof of the bad
moral character of the victim is irrelevant
to establish the probability or improbability
of his killing since the accused did not
assert that the killing was made in self-
defense. <
 IMPEACHMENT & REHABILITATION
OF WITNESS
• The adverse party may introduce
evidence that a witness’s general
reputation for honesty, integrity, or truth
(HIT) is bad for purposes of impeaching
the witness. (S11 R132). >
If the witness’s character was impeached,
the party who had presented the witness
may rehabilitate his witness by presenting
evidence of his good moral character. (S54
R130).
When character is directly in issue
• 1. In actions for libel or slander.
2. In action for seduction.
3. In cases involving negligent hiring.
4. In child custody cases.
 Common reputation, uses of (IM)
1. Common reputation is admissible
to prove moral character. (S43 R130).
2. Adverse party’s witness may be
impeached by evidence that his general
reputation for honesty, integrity, or truth is
bad. (S11 R132). <
• BURDEN OF PROOF
BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
Duty of a party to present Duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in evidence sufficient to
issue necessary to establish or rebut a prima
establish his claim or facie case.
defense by the amount of
evidence required by law
Never shifts Shifts from one party to
another depending on
exigencies of case
 Burden of Evidence
• Burden of evidence is simply the burden
of making or meeting a prima-facie case.
[McCloskey v. Koplar, 329 Mo. 527 (Mo.
1932)].
 Equipoise doctrine
Where the evidence on an particular
issue is in equipoise or level, the party with
the burden of proof will lose out on that
particular issue. (Rivera v. CA, 23 Jan 1998).
• PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
• G.R. The examination of a witness shall
be done in open court (oral
examination).
 Exceptions (SJ)
1. S9 & 15 Rule on Summary
Procedure.
2. Cases covered by the Judicial
Affidavit Rule (JAR).
 Impeachment*
• Means to destroy or put in doubt the
credibility of the witness or his
testimony. Not necessary to show that
witness is lying but that witness may be
mistaken in his observation or narration
(e.g. using inconsistent statement).
Impeachment may be done during
cross or by independent evidence.
 How adverse party’s witness
impeached (RICC)
1. Reputation for honesty, integrity, or
truth (HIT) is bad.
2. Inconsistent statement (S14 R132).
3. Contradictory evidence.
4. Conviction. (S12 R132)
 Impeachment of adverse party’s
witness by conviction
• The adverse party’s witness may be
impeached by evidence that he has been
convicted by final judgment of a crime if
(a) the crime was punishable by a penalty
> one year or (b) the crime involved
moral turpitude, regardless of the
penalty. >
 However, evidence of a conviction is
not admissible if the conviction has been
the subject of an amnesty or annulment of
conviction. (S12 R132 as amended by 2020
Rules)
The evidence may be shown by the
examination of the witness, or the record
of the judgment. (S11 R132).
How own witness impeached (RICC)

1. Inconsistent statement.
2. Contradictory evidence.
3. Conviction. (S12 R132)
• Impeachment by inconsistent statement,
requires that the predicate be laid. The
laying of the predicate is done as follows:
(WARE)
–If the statements are in writing, they
must first be shown to the witness
before any question is asked of him.
–The statements must be related to
him, with the circumstances of the
time and place and the persons
present (tpp). >
–He must be asked whether he made
such statements.
–If so, he must be asked to explain the
inconsistency. <
• If the predicate is not laid, the
impeachment is not complete, and the
witness has not been impeached
effectively. (Pp v. Cortezano, 375 SCRA
95).
• On appeal, the CA cannot consider an
inconsistent statement of witness if the
witness was not impeached in the trial
court.
• AUTHENTICATION AND
PROOF OF DOCUMENTS.
 Private/Public docus
• PRIVATE DOCUMENTS: G.R. Need to be
authenticated.

• PUBLIC DOCUMENTS: Do not require

authentication.
 Public docs not required
to be authenticated
• Authentication is not required of public
documents because they are presumed
authentic by virtue of their nature. The
presumption may be overthrown.
Public Documents, S19 R132 (PATO)

a) Written official acts or records of

official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and public
officers (SOP), whether of the
Philippines or of a foreign country. >
b) Acknowledged documents, except
wills.
d) Public records of private documents
required by law to be entered therein.
 Republic v Gimenez (2016)
• Financial statements, whether audited or
not, are as a general rule private
documents. However, once financial
statements are filed with a government
office pursuant to a provision of law, e.g.
with the SEC, such financial statements >
(not just their recordation) become public
documents pursuant to Section 19(d). (See
Republic v. Gimenez, 778 SCRA 261, 312
[2016]).
 Addition to public documents
by 2020 Rules
• c) Documents that are considered public
documents under treaties and
conventions which are in force between
the Philippines and the country of
source. (S19[c] R132).
 Public document
• Death certificate is a public document;
no need to present in court the person
who executed it. (People v. Espina, 10
July 2019, Lazaro-Javier, J.; Patungan v.
People, 20 Jan 2020, Peralta, C.J.).
 Entries in public records
by public officers
• Documents consisting of entries in public
records made in the performance of a
duty by a public officer are prima facie
evidence of the facts stated therein. (S23
R132). This is in effect an exception to
the hearsay rule. (See also S46 R130).
• Affidavits and sworn certifications are
not public documents because they are
not acknowledged but merely sworn to
before a notary public.
 • The city ordinance is a
Kwong Mgt. v. public document. Under
Diamond
Homeowner’s
S19(a) R132, written
Association official acts of the
sovereign authority,
official bodies and
tribunals, and public
officers of the Philippines
are public documents. >
 Hence it is prima facie
evidence of security and
safety concerns within
subdivision. (S23 R132).
(Kwong Mgt. Inc. v.
Diamond Homeowners
Assoc. Inc., 10 June 2019,
Leonen, J.).
 Dizon v Matti

• The passport which is a public document,

the issuance thereof being an official act of
the DFA and containing official stamps made
by the Bureau of Immigration, is clear and
convincing evidence to overthrow the
presumption of genuiness and due
execution of a notarized document. >
If Matti was in London at the alleged date of
the execution of the deed of sale, it is clear
that her signature was forged. (Dizon v. Matti,
27 March 2019, Caguioa, J.). <
USAID certification re
income of employee

• The certification as to the income of the deceased,

executed by his employer, the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID), is a
public document under S19(a) R132. It is prima
facie evidence of the facts stated therein under S23
R132. (Heirs of Ochoa v. G&S Transport, 16 July
2012).
• The chemistry report showing a positive
result of the paraffin test is a public
document under S19(a) R132 and does
not need authentication. The forensic
chemist who made the report need not
be presented in court to identify,
describe and testify how the report was
conducted. (Kummer v Pp, 11 Sep 2013).
 Iwasawa v Gangan, 11 Sep 2013
• NSO certification of marriage, death, and
that private respondent has record of 2
marriages are public documents
pursuant to Article 410 of the Civil Code
which provides that the books making up
the civil register and all documents
relating thereto are public documents
and shall be prima facie proof of the
facts therein. >
Hence there was no need to present the
records custodian of the NSO to testify
on their authenticity and due execution.
<
• Medical certificate by a government
physician that respondent was
“phenotypically male” is a public
document and thus does not require
authentication. (Republic v. Unabia, 11
Feb 2019, Del Castillo, J.).
 How is an official record proved?
(S24 R132)
• 1. Official publication thereof, or
2. Copy attested by the officer having
the legal custody of the record or by his
deputy and accompanied, if the record is
not kept in the Philippines, with a
certificate that such officer has the
custody. >
 Consular Certification
The certificate may be made by a
foreign service officer of the Ph stationed
in the foreign country in which the record
is kept and authenticated by the seal of his
or her office.
• If the office in which the record is kept is
in a foreign country, which is a
contracting party to a treaty or
convention to which the Ph is also a
party, or considered a public document
under such treaty or convention
pursuant to S19(c) R132, >
the certificate or its equivalent shall be in
the form prescribed by such treaty or
convention subject to reciprocity granted
to public documents originating from the
Philippines.
• Under the Apostille Convention on
Authentication of Documents, to which
the Philippines is a signatory, and which
entered into force here on 14 May 2019,
where a foreign country which is a
signatory to the convention has affixed
an apostille to a document, >
that document need no longer be
authenticated by a Philippine consular
officer in order to be received in evidence
in the Philippines.
In substance, the Convention
abolishes the requirement of
consularization for foreign public
documents.
 Apostille
• A certification under the terms of the
Apostille Convention. If the convention
applies between two countries, such an
apostille is sufficient to certify a
document's validity, and removes the
need for double-certification, by the
originating country and then by the
receiving country.
 A document that is accompanied by a
certificate or its equivalent may be
presented in evidence without further
proof, the certificate or its equivalent being
prima facie evidence of the due execution
and genuineness of the document
involved.
• Assuming the certificate of divorce may
be considered as the divorce decree, it
was not accompanied by a consular
certificate issued by the proper
Philippine foreign service officer
stationed in Canada, as required under
S24 R132. (Sarto v. People, 28 February
2018, Martires, J.).
• Proof of Japanese divorce law must
comply with S24 & 25 R132. A
photocopy of excerpts of The Civil Code
of Japan, merely stamped “LIBRARY,
Embassy of Japan” is non-compliant.
(Nullada v. Ito, 23 January 2019, Reyes, J.)
• OFFER AND OBJECTION
 • The offer of evidence, the
Offer, comment or objection
thereto, and the court
objection ruling shall be made orally
& ruling in accordance with S35-40
R132. (S6 R30).
• 2020 Rules requires that all evidence
must be offered orally.
When and how to offer evidence
 Offer of evidence
When made
Testimonial At time witness is called to
evidence testify or presented.
Doc & obj After last witness
evidence presented, immediate oral
offer, no written offer
• The proponent should state the
purpose/s for which he is offering the
evidence.
Reason: So that the court may
consider the evidence for the purpose for
which it was offered. Evidence not
formally offered cannot be considered by
the Court.
 • Mere identification of
documents and the
marking thereof as
Identi- exhibits do not confer
fication & any evidentiary weight
marking on the documents
are not unless these are formally
offered. (Heirs of Cruz-
offer Zamora v. Multiwood
Inter. Inc., 19 Jan 09).
• When should an objection to
evidence be made?
 When to object
Oral JAW
Testimony
Testimonial 1. Offer made. At start of the
evidence 2. Obj. presentation of
question is witness, move to
asked. disqualify W or
strike out JAW or
answer. >
 General vs specific objection
• A specific objection is one which
specifies its ground while a general
objection does not specify any ground
or uses the broadside or shotgun
phrase, “irrelevant and incompetent.”
• The rules prohibit a general
objection. S36 R132 states that “in
any case, the grounds for the
objection must be specified.”
 Tender of excluded evidence
• If documents or things offered in
evidence are excluded by the court, the
offeror may have the same attached to or
made part of the record. >
If the evidence excluded is oral, the
offeror may state for the record the
name and other personal circumstances
of the witness and the substance of the
proposed testimony. (NaPS)
The purpose of making a TEE is to allow
the appellate court to assess whether the
trial court’s exclusion of the evidence is
proper.
 Yu v CA, 29 Nov 2005
• Under S40 R132 before tender of
excluded evidence may be made, the
evidence must have been formally
offered to the court and denied
admission by it. >
Here the insurance policy and application
had not been formally offered to the trial
court. Hence the tender of excluded
evidence was not an adequate remedy
which precludes or moots the filing of a
petition for certiorari. (Yu v. CA, 29 Nov
05)
BEST OF LUCK IN
THE BAR EXAM
FROM YOUR
JURISTS FAMILY!